Kitcher has proposed an ideal-theory account—well-ordered science (WOS)—of the collective good that science’s research agenda should promote. Against criticism regarding WOS’s action guidance, Kitcher has advised critics not to confuse substantive ideals and the ways to arrive at them, and he has defended WOS as a necessary and useful ideal for science policy. I provide a distinction between two types of ideal theories that helps clarifying WOS’s elusive nature. I use this distinction to argue that the action-guidance problem that WOS faces remains even under the aims/means distinction because the WOS’s failure is more basic than critics have suggested.

中文翻译：

---

有序科学的基本问题

Kitcher 提出了一个理想的理论解释——有序科学（WOS）——对科学的研究议程应该促进的集体利益。针对对 WOS 行动指南的批评，Kitcher 建议批评者不要混淆实质性理想和实现这些理想的方法，他捍卫 WOS 作为科学政策的必要和有用的理想。我提供了两种类型的理想理论之间的区别，以帮助阐明 WOS 难以捉摸的本质。我用这个区别来论证 WOS 面临的行动指导问题即使在目标/手段的区别下仍然存在，因为 WOS 的失败比批评者所暗示的更为根本。